CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Albert Suites at Battersea Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Albert Suites at Battersea Place is rated Good overall, but inspectors found management and quality checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 24 June 2021. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, visitors and staff. They also checked care plans, medicines, staff files, training records and management records.
The home was rated Good for safety and responsiveness. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, regular risk reviews, safe medicines support and infection control arrangements. People received personalised care, suitable food and a varied activities programme. Complaints were investigated and answered.
The well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Management changes had affected staff morale, staff supervision and some quality audits. The home had a new manager who was viewed positively, but some management systems were not yet consistent. Effective was inspected in part but not rated, so its previous rating was not changed.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe and well cared for.
“People using the service and their relatives were happy that they were safe and well cared for.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels were judged sufficient for the people living in the home, and recruitment checks were robust.
“There were enough staff employed to meet the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff supported people to take medicines safely. The electronic system helped reduce missed or late doses.
“People were supported to take their prescribed medicines in a safe way by staff who were competent to do so.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
Care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences. People could take part in individual and group activities.
“People had care plans which were individual to their needs.” from the report
Complaints handled
The home displayed its complaints procedure and records showed that complaints were investigated and answered.
“Records showed that complaints received had been acknowledged and responded to after a full investigation.” from the report
Quality checks were missed
needs fixingSome quality assurance audits had not been completed while the previous manager had left and before the new manager started. Inspectors asked the home to restart these checks.
“Although some governance audits continued to take place, there were others that had not been completed in the period between the previous registered manager leaving and the new manager starting.” from the report
Staff supervision was inconsistent
needs fixingFour of the five staff files checked showed only one supervision since January 2021. The provider did not have a supervision policy at the time.
“Out of the five staff files we saw, four staff had only received one supervision since January 2021.” from the report
Staff morale and management stability
minorChanges to management had been disruptive for some staff and affected morale. The new manager was starting meetings and other ways for staff to give feedback.
“This also had an impact on some of the governance and quality assurance audits.” from the report
- 01Which quality assurance audits were missed, and have they all now been completed?
- 02How often will staff supervision take place, and what does the new supervision policy require?
- 03What is the current management structure, and who will cover the home if the manager is unavailable?
- 04How are staff meetings and the suggestions box being used to improve morale and respond to staff concerns?
- 05How is the home checking that face-to-face training and refresher training remain up to date?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with a targeted review of parts of Effective; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and previous comprehensive inspection ratings were carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 September 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good; Albert Suites at Battersea Place provided kind, safe care, but inspectors identified differences with agency staff and further end-of-life training needs.
This was the home's first CQC inspection since it was registered. It was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 17 April 2018. One inspector spoke with people using the service, staff and health and social care professionals, and reviewed care plans, staff records, audits, complaints and training records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, were treated kindly and were involved in decisions about their care. Inspectors found suitable staffing levels, good recruitment checks, regular equipment checks, appropriate care plans and safe medicines arrangements.
The report also records two areas to watch. People and professionals reported that agency staff did not always provide care as consistently as permanent staff. Health professionals said staff needed more training and understanding in end-of-life care. The manager had recognised these issues and had arranged steps including regular contact with the agency and end-of-life training.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were identified and reviewed, equipment and the environment were checked, and medicines records were completed correctly. Staff recruitment checks were also robust.
“Equipment was regularly serviced and well maintained. Recruitment systems were robust and made sure that the right staff were recruited to support people to stay safe.” from the report
Involvement and choice
People were involved in planning their care, choosing how support was delivered, selecting meals and taking part in decisions about their rooms and activities.
“People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care, support and treatment.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them with kindness and respect. Inspectors observed positive interactions and found that privacy and confidentiality were respected.
“They are kind and friendly, always speak with you with respect.” from the report
Food and health support
People had plenty of food and drink choices, flexible meal times and support for cultural, ethical and religious needs. A GP visited weekly and other health professionals were involved when needed.
“People exercised genuine choice and had access to sufficient food and drink throughout the day.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used regular care plan, medicines and clinical audits, alongside team meetings and feedback from people, to monitor the service and identify actions.
“A number of audits took place which helped to ensure that performance, risks and regulatory requirements were understood and managed.” from the report
Agency staff consistency
needs fixingSome people said the care from agency staff was less consistent than care from permanent staff. The manager was aware of this and was meeting the agency manager monthly to request consistent agency workers.
“The agency staff are not as attuned as to what is required compared to the regular staff.” from the report
End-of-life care training
needs fixingTwo health professionals said staff needed to improve their understanding and training in end-of-life care. The home had started arranging workshops and training, so families should check what has since been completed.
“My concern is that if the home are offering palliative and end of life care, the qualified staff should be fully trained and equipped to offer this service.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure agency staff know each person's care needs and provide care consistently with permanent staff?
- 02What end-of-life and palliative care training have nurses and care staff completed since this inspection?
- 03How do you check that staff are confident and competent to support someone receiving end-of-life care?
- 04How are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's condition changes after hospital treatment?
- 05How are people's complaints and feedback followed up, and can you give an example of an improvement made?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and included observations, discussions with people and staff, professional feedback and a review of records. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Albert Suites at Battersea Place
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Albert Suites at Battersea Place →
- June 2018GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Albert Suites at Battersea Place →
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 October 2016.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Wandsworth
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.